Introduction

I would like to thank Henry for the introduction and for leading us at the beginning of our activities this evening. And I would like to echo Henry’s appreciation to those who are present here tonight. It is very encouraging to see the interest in Reformed Believers Publishing, which also is an interest in the magazine that God has given us to publish, Sword and Shield. And I’m also thankful that, although not everybody is able to attend tonight, there are many who have said they will be watching over the livestream; and we welcome you this evening as well.

I can’t help but think, at the occasion of this annual meeting, of the first annual meeting that was held just down the road in a tent on a cool October evening. That was the first annual meeting of an endeavor that God gave us entirely of his grace and that we did not deserve. The memories of that evening are precious to me and to many of us because we were in a bondage that was deceitful and sneaky, so that we did not even realize the bondage we were in. The bondage that we were in became evident especially to me at that first annual meeting. There we came together with God’s people who loved the truth, who loved the Reformed faith, and who were determined to make a witness in this world to that Reformed faith. They were very eager to publish a magazine and determined to send forth a Reformed witness as far as God would carry that magazine on the wings of his Spirit. And when we came together that night, it was like chains broke. It was an experience that I hadn’t had and many of us had not had for a long time, of being entirely free to speak in an assembly of the Reformed faith and the truth of God’s grace. We were able to speak together face to face of the corruption that had overtaken our now mother church but at that time the denomination of which we were a part. There was a freedom in the air that night, and remarks were made to that effect by some of the speakers as well. We did not realize that we actually were free in the office of believer to speak the truth. We were utterly free to speak the truth; and, as importantly, we were utterly free to condemn the lie, to damn the lie, to be angry with the lie, to want no place for the lie. We didn’t know we could speak that way. We didn’t know we could have that. The Lord delivered us, and the Lord gave us a great freedom.

And I believe that at this annual meeting of Reformed Believers Publishing, that same freedom is in evidence. We are at a point not only in the Reformed Protestant Churches but also in our association, in Reformed Believers Publishing, where there is division. That division is evident tonight in the fact that the speaker who was scheduled to speak has declined the invitation. That speaker, Reverend VanderWal, is currently writing publicly against decisions of the classis of the Reformed Protestant Churches. Now, can you imagine such a thing: writing publicly against decisions of the Reformed Protestant Churches? And I would say, as recently as four years ago we couldn’t imagine such a thing. Who would write publicly against decisions of the Protestant Reformed Churches, for example? What is happening right now in our association and in the Reformed Protestant Churches is an aspect of that freedom of the believer to write the truth. That’s what is happening. And I, for one, welcome the open writing—though it hasn’t been on the pages of Sword and Shield; the open writing in a man’s personal blog and on social media posts. I welcome that open writing. It is good for us that we know where we stand, and it is good for us to know whether we can stand together or whether we cannot stand together. That is all for the good. I believe that we ought to see what is happening right now in our association as one of the fruits that God has given us in this association and in the magazine Sword and Shield. I’ll have a little bit more to say about that later, Lord willing; but I want that at the outset to be known, and I think that’s the correct perspective on what is transpiring. What must be tested is whether what the believer writes is the truth. He is not free to write anything but only the truth. 

Because the speaker who was invited tonight did decline the invitation and there is a different speaker in his place, the topic also is not going to be the same. I think the topic that Reverend VanderWal had chosen is a very worthy topic: “The Office of Believer: 1953 and Today.” That is a striking topic because if you look at 1953, that whole controversy over the conditional covenant versus the unconditional covenant was carried on right before the face of the office of believer. It was not a controversy that was carried on behind closed doors; it was not a controversy that was decided by committee meetings; it was a controversy that unfolded openly and publicly, with the office of believer not only reading in the Standard Bearer all of the things that were being said back and forth about the covenant but the believer also writing in and speaking to the issue himself. The controversy over the unconditional covenant in 1953 in some ways was carried on on the back of the believer and before the face of the believer. That topic is highly worthy of exploration, and I do hope that that topic can be developed in some form at some point. I personally did not feel myself able to pull together a speech on that topic in the allotted time, so I have chosen a topic that is related to events going on in our association at the present.

My topic tonight is “Reformed Believers Publishing: A Distinctively Reformed Association.” It is my conviction, as I believe it is the conviction of the association, that God has given us a distinctively Reformed association at a time when distinctiveness is despised. And it is my conviction, as I believe it is yours, that we must have and maintain a distinctively Reformed association.

And that will only happen by the grace of Jehovah God, for this association and our magazine—the whole cause that we represent of God’s sovereign grace and his sovereign, unconditional covenant—have been given to us. All of this is a gift that none of us deserved. God has given us this gift, and the speech tonight is intended to be praise of him for that distinctive Reformed witness.

What It Means to Be Distinctively Reformed

We ought to know what it means to be a distinctively Reformed association. By being distinctively Reformed I mean this: the association so holds the Reformed faith and defends the Reformed faith and promotes the Reformed faith that this association is inseparably identified with the Reformed faith, so that you cannot think of Reformed Believers Publishing without thinking of the Reformed faith. This is a matter of identity. That’s what distinctively Reformed means: a matter of identity.

To be distinctively Reformed we can press further: it means not only that we hold the Reformed faith in such a way that we are identified with that Reformed faith, but it also means that we hold the Reformed faith in such a way that we are distinguished by that Reformed faith from all other associations that either are not Reformed or that take to themselves the name Reformed but do not live up to that name. When we speak of being distinctively Reformed, we are speaking of a distinguishing, a separation. We are speaking of being so characterized by the Reformed faith that Reformed Believers Publishing stands alone and stands apart in the whole world of Reformed publications.

And being a distinctively Reformed association, our magazine also will be distinctively Reformed, so that the moment you think “Sword and Shield,” you think “Reformed” and so that Sword and Shield is characterized by the Reformed faith and distinguished from all other Reformed magazines that are published today.

I say that Reformed Believers Publishing is and ought to be a distinctively Reformed association. That position is not popular. That position is not the mood of the day in the Reformed world. That position is criticized as being proud and arrogant. If an association says, “We are distinctive, and we recognize that we’re distinctive, and we intend to be distinctive—that’s our goal,” then that association will inevitably be criticized as proud. “You think that the Reformed faith dies with you. You think as a Reformed association that you are better than any other Reformed association and that you as members are better than all other people.” The accusation against distinctiveness and against being distinctively Reformed is inevitably the charge of pride. And Reformed publications and Reformed churches right along with that are expending themselves today to be anything but distinctive. The order of the day is not distinctiveness; the order of the day is ecumenicity. The order of the day is to be nice and to carry oneself with a kind of false humility; so that churches and publications, when they encounter the lie, can find in their hearts peace with the lie. Whatever they imagine about their niceness and their love and their humility and all of those things, they are hatred of the Reformed faith.

And that is the order of the day. Reformed publications and churches today are not interested in being distinctively Reformed. That can be demonstrated from a wide variety of publications. I will limit myself to how the Protestant Reformed Churches (PRC) are expending themselves to rid themselves of distinctiveness.

That happened in a recent publication of Professor Engelsma, in which he maintained that “Reformed is enough!”¹ That was his watchword in the article: “Reformed is enough!” What he was fighting against in that article was a supposed attitude that certain members of the Protestant Reformed Churches had had—which members, conveniently for him, are all now in the Reformed Protestant Churches and in Reformed Believers Publishing—of pride and arrogance, an attitude that they were better than everyone else and that there was no PR as good as these PRs; and that now, in the Reformed Protestant Churches, we consider ourselves to be the wheat of the PRC and the remnant of the PRC that’s left now to be the chaff of the PRC. And his antidote to that supposed pride—and there is the charge that always comes against distinctive Reformed intentions—his antidote that he recommended to the PRC was “Reformed is enough!” Now, if you use that phrase Reformed is enough to fight a man who is saying, “Reformed is not enough”—and there are men who are saying that; the federal vision uses as their watchword “Reformed is not enough”—if you’re using Reformed is enough to fight the federal vision’s Reformed is not enough, I’m with you. But I would modify it to this: distinctively Reformed is enough. However, that phrase Reformed is enough or distinctively Reformed is enough is wrongly used to fight distinctiveness in doctrine; that is, to be distinguished by the Reformed faith and to live up to the Reformed faith and to insist on being separate from all of those who are tearing down the Reformed faith; so that when Professor Engelsma used that phrase Reformed is enough, whatever he thought that was going to mean for the Protestant Reformed Churches, that became the watchword for don’t be distinctive. And when you look around you at denominations that are throwing off Reformed doctrine and corrupting that Reformed doctrine at every turn, you can still make nice with those denominations. You can still tell your people that those people are good people. That is the atmosphere in the Protestant Reformed Churches. There is nothing of distinctively Reformed in that.

That is the attitude that is evident in the October 15 Standard Bearer in Rev. Daniel Holstege’s article in the rubric All Around Us, “A View from Ontario, Canada.”² Reverend Holstege notes that in Ontario, Canada, there are many Canadian Reformed Churches and Canadian Reformed people whom he has gotten to know. In the second paragraph of his article, Reverend Holstege gives a brief review of the history between the PRC and the Canadian Reformed Churches. Really, it’s a brief note of the friendship between Herman Hoeksema and Klaas Schilder. In that paragraph Reverend Holstege merely mentions, almost as if it’s a historical curiosity, that Herman Hoeksema and Klaas Schilder ended up disagreeing doctrinally. I say that he notes that almost as a historical curiosity because there’s no condemnation of Schilder’s conditional covenant and no condemnation of the Canadian Reformed conditional covenant, following Schilder. In fact, the article is a paean of praise to the Canadian Reformed Churches. It praises the Canadian Reformed Churches for their diligent mission work here, there, and everywhere; it recommends the Canadian Reformed literature regarding missions to the Protestant Reformed Churches as helpful. That is not distinctively Reformed! And, in fact, it creates an atmosphere among those who are meant to be influenced by the article of finding warmth in their hearts for Canadian Reformed doctrine. That will be the effect. If the PRC and the Canadian Reformed are going to walk together, they must be agreed. They must be agreed. And if they are determined to walk together, they will find, before long, they are agreed; so that if there is anyone who would still damn—and I mean damn—Canadian Reformed doctrine as heresy, they will find in their generations that those churches do not damn that doctrine but believe it and live it.

That whole atmosphere of opposition to distinctiveness is seen also in the fact that a Protestant Reformed minister can leave the Protestant Reformed Churches with apparently doctrinal concerns and be given an attaboy on the way out, a pat on the back, a word of thanksgiving for services rendered. That can only happen in a denomination where the atmosphere is not distinctive.

And I maintain that Reformed Believers Publishing is, by God’s grace, and must be a distinctively Reformed association. The Reformed faith must be so held and developed by us that we are identified with it and that we are distinguished by it.

How an Association Becomes Distinctively Reformed

Now, how does it happen that an association and the people of God become distinctively Reformed? That happens by the truth of God, the Reformed faith, taking hold of the members. You can say it this way: you are not going to make yourselves distinctively Reformed. The truth is going to make you distinctively Reformed: the truth of the gospel of sovereign grace, the truth of God’s unconditional covenant with you—with you! Who are you, who am I, that God should be so gracious to us? Do you know who God is? Do you know his majesty? Do you know how the angels cover their faces before him? And that God, that holy God, has come to the worm that is you and that is me and said, “You’re my son. You’re my daughter. You come live with me. You abide with me. And I will live with you. I abide with you.” That’s God’s unconditional covenant of grace. And when you in that covenant of grace have within you that old, depraved nature that is a fount of corruption, and when you see the sins that you commit, so that there’s no way that such a wretch could live with Jehovah God, God is gracious to you and says, “But this covenant isn’t established on you. It’s not established on your work or on who you are. It is established on me. It is established on my Son, Jesus Christ.” That truth of the unconditional covenant of grace takes hold of the people of God, as Paul says in Romans 10:8: “The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart.” That word is so near that it’s in your heart. God by the gospel has come to you and taken hold of you. And what is the fruit of that? That when the conditional covenant walks through your door, you hate it! You cannot abide it. You distinguish yourself from it. You damn it as wicked and have no fellowship with it. And then you’re distinctively Reformed. It’s all by the sovereign grace and power and gospel of Jehovah God, so that when we say, “Reformed Believers Publishing is a distinctively Reformed association,” all we are saying is this: “God has been gracious to such as us.” That’s all.

This matter of being distinctively Reformed is a beautiful gift of God to his church because a distinctively Reformed association reflects the very nature of the truth itself. And now we begin to swim in what I consider very deep waters. The truth itself is distinctive. The truth in its essence is distinctive. You don’t make the truth distinctive. You don’t take the truth and say, “Now I’m going to make this truth stand out against the lie there and the lie there.” The truth is itself distinctive. The truth always of itself is opposed to the lie. The truth cannot stand the lie. The truth is characterized by opposition to the lie. The truth itself is distinctive.

One of the first ways you can test whether an association or a church or a believer is distinctively Reformed is that when God gives him the truth and takes hold of him by that truth, he cannot help but damn the lie. And so, if somewhere a Reformed association says, “We are distinctively Reformed,” and you listen for a little while, and you hear that it never, never damns the lie, then its failure to condemn the lie has given the lie to its confession. Such an association does not have the truth. The truth will condemn the lie. That’s the nature of the truth.

And that takes us to the deepest that I believe we can go: God himself is distinctive. When we talk about distinctively Reformed, we’re talking about God! God in his own being is distinguished from all others. God says that in the passage that was read this evening, Isaiah 43, as he says it in Isaiah 40 and in many other places: “Whom will ye liken to me? Who is like me?” That’s divine speech for his distinctiveness. You search the heavens; you search the earth; you will find no one like unto God. He alone is exalted above the creature. He alone is exalted above everything opposed to him. God in his being is a distinctive God.

That is also the attribute or perfection or praise of God that we call his holiness. God has many perfections. God is love; God is right and just; God is eternal; God is omnipotent. One of God’s perfections is his holiness, and in that idea of holiness is this distinctiveness of God because holiness does not mean merely purity, as we sometimes think of it. That is true; God is pure. But God’s holiness means that he is consecrated to himself; and in consecration to himself, he is consecrated from all others, so that in the very attribute of God’s holiness is this matter of distinctiveness.

And now let us bring that home to our association. This is a Reformed association. Reformed theology faithfully expresses what God has revealed of himself, so that the true God is the one confessed in the Reformed faith. Distinctively Reformed means nothing other than the truth of God, the truth of his unconditional covenant, the truth of his sovereign saving grace. That is all Reformed means. Reformed isn’t one brand of Christianity at the buffet; Reformed is Christianity. There is no other Christianity than Reformed. Only the Reformed faith teaches the sovereignty of God in the salvation of man. Whatever is not Reformed makes man to be his own savior at some point along the line.

Jehovah God loves his sovereignty. He loves his grace. He loves his unconditional covenant. And when he takes hold of you by that, then you are distinctively Reformed too. You love those things and will not suffer anything to take away those truths.

Specific Characteristics of Being Distinctively Reformed

I would like to spend a little time tonight applying that with regard to specific characteristics of what it means to be distinctively Reformed. You can talk about being distinctively Reformed. You can understand what that means. But now, what are those truths and those characteristics that make an association distinctively Reformed?

First, the truth of election is distinctively Reformed. And when I say, “The truth of election,” I am speaking of the whole decree of God: his decree of Christ as the center of his whole purpose; his decree of all things that shall come to pass; his decree of sovereign election and reprobation. We can summarize the whole decree of God in that one word: election. Our fathers used to call it decretal theology. We have taken to calling it election theology. But it is the same thing. It is the decree of Jehovah God according to which he has determined everything. And I say that decretal theology, election theology, is distinctively Reformed because in that theology you see God as God. You see God as God with regard to reprobation, so that men are condemned eternally to hell because God said so, and that is not unjust. That is not unfair of God. That is just of him. That’s how God God is—so sovereign that he reprobates according to his own will and good pleasure, and no one may say to him, “What doest thou?”

In decretal theology we see the grace of election, that Jehovah God chose to himself his church in Christ because of absolutely nothing in you or in me. Nothing. There was nothing in you that drew him to you. Nothing. In fact, you may say and I must say that I am a worse sinner than the reprobate. I don’t see into the heart of a reprobate man. I see into my heart, and it is filthy; so that I know myself to be a worse sinner than a reprobate or, as Paul put it, the chief of sinners. And yet God from all eternity, before I was born or had done anything, said, “That one is mine. That’s my son. That’s my son. I’m going to have a home for him in heaven. He’s going to have a mansion here with me to live in forever.” That is grace. That election theology is distinctive, very distinctive.

Election theology is distinctive also from this point of view, that election theology is not only a question of who but is also a question of what. Election is not only this: God says, “I choose you and you and you”—the who of whom I’m going to choose. But election is also this: the what. What do I choose you unto? I choose you unto membership in the body of Christ. I choose you unto salvation. I choose you unto justification. The whole what of your salvation is there in election, so that when you start talking about the different gifts of salvation—fellowship, assurance, peace with God—it is election theology alone that is distinctive and that makes fellowship with God to be God’s work alone and the experience of salvation to be from him alone. And everyone who fights that election theology will compromise it.

I make a point of that tonight because that compromise of election theology is well underway in the Protestant Reformed Churches, which is still the Reformed denomination we know best. In Professor Engelsma’s book Gospel Truth of Justification, he discusses in chapter 13 “Justified When?” In that chapter he asks the question, is justification given to you now, in this moment of time, by faith; or is there a sense in which we can speak of justification at the cross, and is there a sense in which we can speak of justification in eternity—eternal justification? And as Professor Engelsma writes about eternal justification, he says this: 

Justification by faith is “real” justification. It is the “reality” of justification. This does not imply the unreality of eternal justification. But it does justice to the truth that biblical justification is a declaration of God by the gospel through faith in the believer’s consciousness. This is what justification is. Justification in eternity is a full reality, according to God’s own decision, only when it realizes itself in the word of the gospel in the consciousness of the elect but guilty sinner, by the operation of the justifying Spirit of Jesus Christ.³

Did you catch that? Professor Engelsma says that eternal justification is a reality. That is, from all eternity God justified his people. He declared them righteous. And he declared them righteous in Christ. It wasn’t just this, that from all eternity he declared that someday he would declare them righteous—once they were born and once they believed—but in eternity they were declared righteous. But now, confessing that eternal justification is real, Professor Engelsma immediately breaks the counsel, destroys the counsel, of God by saying, “Justification in eternity is a full reality…only when it realizes itself…in the consciousness of the…sinner.” Eternal justification isn’t real until you hear it. Then it becomes real. And I say, that breaks election. That overthrows election because the counsel of God, then—not only eternal justification but also the whole counsel of God—isn’t real until it’s realized here in time and history.

This goes back to the debate that we’ve talked about before between Herman Hoeksema and Professor Engelsma on whether the counsel of God is more real than history. Hoeksema maintained that the counsel is more real than history, and Engelsma disagreed with him publicly at his synodical examination. I didn’t realize how serious that debate was. I had always thought that was kind-of a curious, cute historical insight into the personality of Herman Hoeksema. But I begin to see that that debate is central to election theology. Is election and God’s counsel and decree real, or is it only real in time and history? And I say that God’s counsel is real, so that from all eternity I was righteous in Christ. That’s the language of Canons 1.7, where election is defined. God decreed to make Christ the head of the elect. And if he’s the head of the elect, then the elect have everything in him already in eternity. You could even say this: you already have your inheritance. You’ve been in heaven a thousand times a thousand times a thousand years already in God’s counsel. That’s very real. That’s a very real thing. And that doesn’t deny the reality of time and history. Time and history are the unfolding of that counsel. But that counsel in itself is a very real counsel. That’s distinctively Reformed. You’re going to lose everything if you break election by making it somehow unreal until it is realized in time.

You can think of the difference this way: if God’s eternal decree is not real until it is realized in time, then his decree is only a blueprint. That’s all it is. The reality is in time; this is the house that the blueprint directs God to build; this is the reality, and the decree is just the blueprint. But the teaching that the eternal counsel is real means that in God’s eternal counsel is the whole house. There is the whole covenant. There is the whole Christ. There is the whole body of Christ. There is your whole inheritance. It’s all there. It is the reality. And now in time and history is God’s revelation and unfolding of all of that to us.

That’s distinctively Reformed decretal theology or election theology.

Distinctively Reformed means, second, that this association is confessional. This association lives out of the confessions and holds the Reformed confessions as authoritative. To be confessional means that the matter of doctrine for us as an association is decided by the Reformed confessions—not because the Reformed confessions are above the word of God but because the Reformed confessions set forth faithfully the divine doctrine of the word of God, so that all matters can be explained and defended out of the confessions. To be a distinctively Reformed association means being confessional.

That has application to the controversy that our association and the Reformed Protestant Churches find ourselves in at the moment. I have thought that perhaps the Reformed Protestant Churches don’t have a school problem so much as we have a confessions problem. I think that is being borne out. The confessions are crystal clear on schools. Crystal clear. So clear that every attempt to make the confessions unclear on the schools involves decades of wrangling and decades of sowing seeds. And those seeds have been sown among us for decades, that the Christian school is not required, not a demand of the covenant; it’s something else. The confessions put that whole controversy to bed. If you want a further beautiful explanation of that, I highly recommend Reverend Langerak’s speech sponsored by Sovereign Reformed Protestant Church.⁴ There the confessional doctrine of the schools as the demand of the covenant is laid out beautifully.

But there is more to that for us: is it hierarchical to decide that matter on the confessions, or is it part of the freedom of the believer—which Reformed Believers Publishing has trumpeted from the beginning—that matters be decided on the basis of the confessions and that we hold one another to the confessions? That matter is unresolved among some. But let it be resolved among us all that being distinctively Reformed means standing on the confessions; so that when a matter comes up at classis, even if it comes up that very day, and the matter is brought before the confessions for the confessions to speak to, and men are held accountable to the confessions for their offices or for their places in the church, that is not accused of being hierarchical. That is not hierarchy. When the confessions say, “Schools,” that is not Langerak or Lanning or anyone else you could think of saying, “Schools”; that is the confessions. And when Reformed believers together, in an association or in the church of Jesus Christ, hold each other to that, that is just being distinctively Reformed; being so distinctively Reformed that any lie opposed to that truth is disgusting, intolerable; so that there may be no compromise—not for a moment—on confessional doctrine.

That is what it means to be distinctively Reformed: it means to be confessional. And that is true liberty for the child of God. We have said for all of our existence now—our few years of existence in Reformed Believers Publishing—that the believer is free to speak the truth. And he is free to condemn the lie. That is true for Editor VanderWal. He is free to speak the truth and free to condemn the lie. That is true for Editor Lanning. That is true for the association members. That is true for every Reformed believer in his office of believer. He is free to speak the truth and to condemn the lie, and no one may say to him when he speaks the truth and condemns the lie, “You mayn’t do that”—so much so that here at Reformed Believers Publishing we have maintained that it is our right to write and speak against decisions of assemblies of the churches. I maintain that right yet tonight. Our position at Reformed Believers Publishing has never been “You’re free to say anything you want,” that believers are free to lie or that believers are free to oppose the Reformed standards of the church. The position has never been “You’re free to say anything.” The position has always been “You are free to speak the truth, and no one may say no to that; and you are free to condemn the lie, and no one may say no to that.”

That is how these matters will be decided too. That’s distinctively Reformed too, that these matters be decided by the judgment of each believer as he hears what men speak. Is that the truth, or is that the lie?

There is safety. There is freedom for the believer because then our foundation is the truth of Jehovah God himself. And that is a firm foundation that will not fail.

By God’s grace he has made Reformed Believers Publishing a distinctively Reformed association. And I can testify to that personally with a comparison of what it was like to write in the PRC with what it is like to write now for Sword and Shield. When I was in Singapore, Maurice Roberts, a foremost champion of common grace, came from the United Kingdom to Singapore and spoke, defending common grace. When I wrote an article in the church’s magazine against common grace, I had to look over my shoulder the whole time. The committee was uncomfortable with a sharp letter condemning common grace. Eventually something was published, but I had to look over my shoulder. That was worse in the PRC. When a new school year was going to begin and it was time to write a pastor’s article for the church newsletter and I wrote against homeschooling in that article, the consistory had all kinds of wranglings over it, whether it should be published or not, because of all the homeschoolers at Byron Center. With the Reformed Free Publishing Association (RFPA), it was worse yet. The RFPA asked me to review the second volume of Reverend Langerak’s commentary on Corinthians, Walking in the Way of Love. And the editors at the Standard Bearer went around and around in some of the most bizarre correspondence I have ever been a part of and finally shut down the book review. And it could only finally be published in Sword and Shield once that magazine started.

And now in three volumes of writing for Sword and Shield, I have never had to look over my shoulder. I have never had to wonder if speaking the truth, writing the truth, is going to be shut down. And the fact that I don’t have to look over my shoulder and that we don’t have to look over our shoulders in our publication of the magazine is not a testimony to us but to Jehovah God. He has given us his gospel and his truth. He has taken hold of our hearts by that truth, and the fruit of that is a distinctively Reformed association and magazine.

To God be the glory. 

I thank you for your time.